Article View: comp.fonts
Article #660Re: font encoding morass
From: Jim DeLaHunt
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:48
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:48
45 lines
2853 bytes
2853 bytes
>>In article <71384@apple.Apple.COM> opstad@Apple.COM (David Opstad) writes:
>>
>>As I've said before, Unicode and ligatures are completely orthogonal issues.
>>I have on my machine right now a Unicode font containing almost 1,000
>>glyphs, including scores of ligatures. The ligatures, like the rest of the
>>typographic richness of this font, are accessed via a well-defined method
>>that has *nothing* to do with the character encoding (i.e. Unicode).
I believe this is right on the money!
> In article <1992Aug20.013444.6313@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael
> Wang) writes:
>
>In the case of document portability, I don't feel that Unicode and
>ligatures are unrelated issues.
Well, we weren't talking about this kind of document portability before.
Unicode only pretends to provide portability of *plain text* across
platforms. Think of it as having the advantages and limitations of plain
ASCII text. Formatting and ligature substitution systems like Line Layout
Manager are (as far as I understand) platform-specific, but can support
multiple encoding schemes. The PostScript language can describe formatted
documents in *final form* across platforms.
I think what you want, Michael, is a way to have *revisable* source form
documents, which are editable, portable across platforms, richly formatted
with ligatures and layout, yet have the same appearance across platforms.
I'd love to have that too, but I don't know of any way to achieve this yet.
By the way, I'd like to give Berthold a cheer for starting this thread.
I symphathise with his frustration too.
> [Michael Wang continues:]
> How do you setup Unicode so that it can uniquely encode each of these
> different versions? Do you turn Unicode into a 24-bit encoding where
> each of the regular 16-bit characters can have 256 variations?
Perish the thought! Unicode should stay the way it is. If you want
consistent glyphs across platforms then use functionally identical
formatting systems, and a richly formatted source format, on all platforms.
My two cents worth,
--Jim DeLaHunt, Developer Support, Adobe Systems Incorporated
delahunt@adobe.com ...!{apple,decwrl}!adobe!delahunt +1-415-962-3790
My own daydreams, not Adobe's daydreams.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug21.054826.4016@adobe.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!decwrl!adobe!delahuntReferences:
<26760@life.ai.mit.edu> <71384@apple.Apple.COM> <1992Aug20.013444.6313@adobe.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.fonts Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!decwrl!adobe!delahunt From: delahunt@adobe.com (Jim DeLaHunt) Subject: Re: font encoding morass Message-ID: <1992Aug21.054826.4016@adobe.com> Followup-To: comp.fonts Summary: Unicode + Line Layout isn't supposed to give source-level portability Keywords: encoding unicode line layout portability Sender: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated References: <26760@life.ai.mit.edu> <71384@apple.Apple.COM> <1992Aug20.013444.6313@adobe.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:48:26 GMT Lines: 47